Travers West Arm

[chubbdarter]

The discussion about further regulating the West arm of Travers Res. has been on going for a few weeks now.
I would like to hear from members on here who fish Travers regularly.
Do you believe the West arm of Travers needs special regulations and what would you purpose?

[huntsfurfish]

Im not convinced it needs further regulation. Beyond the existing closure of the river for the spawn.

[mikeo2]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Im not convinced it needs further regulation. Beyond the existing closure of the river for the spawn.

Are you talking about the extra 2 weeks that the west arm will be closed starting thi upcoming year? I dont think it's long enough during late springs like we had this year. I say a march 1 to June 30 closure is needed.

[huntsfurfish]

"Are you talking about the extra 2 weeks that the west arm will be closed starting thi upcoming year"

yup.

Closing from the park west or closing the whole west arm?

[huntsfurfish]

Protecting the river during spawn would be a good thing, closing the entire west arm is unneccessary.

[Daceminnow]

i haven't fished travers nearly as much as many, many others i'm sure on the board as i've only been back down south for a couple of years now. i do know however that certain species of fish should be left to do what they do in the spring with limited or no fishing pressure. simple stuff, stay out of their bedroom and allow them to reproduce more fish for everyone to enjoy. no special regs on the reservoirs down here, why? northern lakes have had special spring closures and complete section closures for some time now. makes sense, no?

from the regs. a few popular fisheries.


Pigeon Lake & tributaries (excluding Tide Creek) & outlet –
the portion of lake west of a line drawn from the northwesternmost tip of the point in 13-12-47-2-W5 due north to the point where the line intersects the shoreline of the lake in 13-47-2-W5, locally known as Zeiner Park and including Tide Creek.
CLOSED all year.


Sylvan Lake & tributaries –
the portion of lake southwest of a line drawn from the northeastern most tip of the landfill pier in Sylvan Lake Provincial Park located at NW 33-38-1-W5M due northwest to the point on the shoreline where the boundary between the town of Sylvan Lake and the Summer Village of Norglenwold meet the lake located at NE 32-38-1-W5M. Including all tributary streams.
April 1 to June 30 – CLOSED


Fawcett Lake & tributaries –
the portion north and east of a line drawn from the MD boat launch in SE12-73-26-W4 to the point of land in SE11-73-26-W4 including the Mink River, Fawcett (Howard) River and the areas locally known as the narrows and east basin
OPEN July 1 to Feb. 28 and CLOSED Mar. 1 to June 30.


Lesser Slave Lake
the portion west of a line drawn from Shaw Point to the point of land in 26-74-14-W5 known as Little Grassy Point, including Buffalo Bay and the Grouard Channel & their tributaries (see also East Prairie River, South Heart River and Traverse Creek).
CLOSED – Mar. 1 to June 15


Calling Lake & portions of tributaries & outlet during open seasons –
the portion northerly of a straight line drawn southwesterly from the point where the line intersects the eastern shore at the northern boundary of SE02-73-22-W4 to the point where the line intersects the western shore at the northern boundary of NE12-72-23-W4 & tributaries, including Rock Island River downstream of Sec. Rd. 813
CLOSED all year


Pinehurst Lake (65-10-W4)
the portion north of a line drawn from the easternmost point of land in NW19-65-09-W4 easterly to the westernmost point of land in NE19-65-09-W4 locally known as Snug Cove (Mud Bay) – CLOSED

Dace

[mikeo2]

Originally Posted by huntsfurfish

Protecting the river during spawn would be a good thing, closing the entire west arm is unneccessary.

I guess it depends on whose definition of west arm you're using. I'd say close from the beach or boat launch west.

[MoFugger21]

I mainly fish the lake in the winter, and the couple times in the summer, so I can't really comment on the walleye activity in the spring with regards to the river and the west arm, and have to defer to what guys say that do fish the lake regularly in the spring....

With that said, anything to help protect the walleye population in that lake is beneficial in my eyes...

What about lowering the limit of walleye to 0 from the time the lake re-opens (May 8) to a later date after spring (like June 15 or June 30)? Then open up the lake to harvest after the June date? (Do something like Keho where you can only harvest between certain dates.)

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by MoFugger21

I mainly fish the lake in the winter, and the couple times in the summer, so I can't really comment on the walleye activity in the spring with regards to the river and the west arm, and have to defer to what guys say that do fish the lake regularly in the spring....

With that said, anything to help protect the walleye population in that lake is beneficial in my eyes...

What about lowering the limit of walleye to 0 from the time the lake re-opens (May 8) to a later date after spring (like June 15 or June 30)? Then open up the lake to harvest after the June date? (Do something like Keho where you can only harvest between certain dates.)

Mo are you talking about the existing regs for Keho or the proposed and soon to be implemented new regs?

[MoFugger21]

Originally Posted by MoFugger21

I mainly fish the lake in the winter, and the couple times in the summer, so I can't really comment on the walleye activity in the spring with regards to the river and the west arm, and have to defer to what guys say that do fish the lake regularly in the spring....

With that said, anything to help protect the walleye population in that lake is beneficial in my eyes...

What about lowering the limit of walleye to 0 from the time the lake re-opens (May 8) to a later date after spring (like June 15 or June 30)? Then open up the lake to harvest after the June date? (Do something like Keho where you can only harvest between certain dates.)

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

Mo are you talking about the existing regs for Keho or the proposed and soon to be implemented new regs?

Well... Both... Right? Other than the dates changing when you can harvest Walleye, the Keho reg still has a date range in which there is a 0 limit on walleye. Obviously I'm not saying to use the same dates as Keho (old or new reg), just use the same premise within Travers.

Cause as it stands right now in Keho, you can keep 0 walleye from May 8-Nov 30 and Mar 1-Mar 15, and is closed completely from Mar 16- May 7. (and if/when that regulation is changed, the date is pushed back from Dec to include open water walleye harvesting in Sept) So wouldn't something along this lines work in Travers? Whether it be just the 'west arm' or the whole lake.

So the regulation for Travers could read:

Travers Reservoir
- May 8 to June 15/30 – Walleye limit 0; Pike limit 3 over 63 cm; Perch limit 15; Lake Whitefish limit 10; Burbot limit 10.
- June 15/30 to Mar 15 - Walleye limit 3 over 50 cm; Pike limit 3 over 63 cm; Perch limit 15; Lake Whitefish limit 10; Burbot limit 10.
- Mar. 16 to May 7 – CLOSED

Now to be fair, I'm definitely no expert, and like I said earlier, I really only fish Travers in the winter, so I have little knowledge on what the effects on walleye spawning are with even just catch and release. If still catching them has major effects on the spawn, then yes, maybe the 'west arm' or even whole lake should be closed to accommodate the later spawning that is currently happening.

So if that is the case.... Maybe when the lake is closed for the season needs to be looked at, and instead of closing Mar 16, push everything one month later. So the lake is closed from April 16 to June 7, with all existing regulation applying. So in that case, the new regulation could read....

Travers Reservoir
- Jun. 8 to Apr. 15 – Walleye limit 3 over 50 cm; Pike limit 3 over 63 cm; Perch limit 15; Lake Whitefish limit 10; Burbot limit 10.
- Apr. 16 to Jun. 7 – CLOSED

Again, these are just ideas, so don't roast me if it all seems ridiculous, or if you disagree on the dates, lol. The dates are just examples...

[chubbdarter]

Mo all very good ideas with sound thinking behind them.
It will definetly be noted as a topic of discussion

Thank you

[Winch101]

I smell Walleyes Unlimited on this one ....I think they should reduce the size limit on 3 fish ...Godown to 13-14 " ....There are too many walleyes in that lake ....they are stunted ....short of food ...close the creek I guess till June 15....but two years ago the good ones were in there till after Aug 1 ...
Obviously this is a lake designed for catch and fry ....so let it go....
More regs more poaching ... and seeing as the last time a FW guy showed up there was probably in the early 50's....

The fact that the gov is even looking at this , shows you any half baked idea is possible ...

[MoFugger21]

Originally Posted by chubbdarter

Mo all very good ideas with sound thinking behind them.
It will definetly be noted as a topic of discussion

Thank you

Ya, no worries.

I should note though, that I personally think IF something is going to change to the Travers regulations, it should be a blanket change encompassing the whole lake, and not a change to just one section (ie- the west arm).

It just seems to me that making a change to one section of the lake could be a logistical nightmare and create confusion. Without a map showing the exact closures to certain sections, and an explanatory paragraph to go with the map, it could leave things to interpretation, and the less interpretation/grey areas within the regulations, the better imo!

So it seems the only way to alleviate the logistical nightmare, is to, as I stated above, change around the dates for the whole lake in order to take the pressure off of the walleye during their spawn.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by MoFugger21

Ya, no worries.

I should note though, that I personally think IF something is going to change to the Travers regulations, it should be a blanket change encompassing the whole lake, and not a change to just one section (ie- the west arm).

It just seems to me that making a change to one section of the lake could be a logistical nightmare and create confusion. Without a map showing the exact closures to certain sections, and an explanatory paragraph to go with the map, it could leave things to interpretation, and the less interpretation/grey areas within the regulations, the better imo!

So it seems the only way to alleviate the logistical nightmare, is to, as I stated above, change around the dates for the whole lake in order to take the pressure off of the walleye during their spawn.

Your absolutely correct......at the meeting No conclusion as to how the boundary would work was agreed upon.
Hopefully the test results will become open soon for furthur discussion also.

[npauls]

If the change was made to close the west arm or whatever reg. changes to the west end they could use either the pump house or the boat launch as a boundary marker. Maybe put some kind of marker system across the lake on the shoreline so it is a definitive line. This would make so there is no gray area to cause more confusion.

For Keho I think they should make the regs to include the inlet canal all the way up to the road culvert as the lake.

[kent]

I fish Travers quite regularly and I am wondering if there is a need for a change. I would think that the only time you should change the regulations is that there is sound scientific evidence that they need changing. What does the recent data show as compared to the old data? Is the walleye population shrinking? Are the sizes of the fish changing? We should not be taking our judgements as even if we don’t notice our techniques, time of year, areas fished etc . change. We should be relying on scientific data to support changes.

[npauls]

Originally Posted by kent

I fish Travers quite regularly and I am wondering if there is a need for a change. I would think that the only time you should change the regulations is that there is sound scientific evidence that they need changing. What does the recent data show as compared to the old data? Is the walleye population shrinking? Are the sizes of the fish changing? We should not be taking our judgements as even if we don’t notice our techniques, time of year, areas fished etc . change. We should be relying on scientific data to support changes.

The west arm gets pounded on really hard for the first month or 2 of the season and that can't be good for the fish that are spawning in there. The big females are already pretty stressed and out of energy due to spawning and then they get hooked into and have to put up an even more stressful fight with an angler. I can see this causing quite a few problems.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by kent

I fish Travers quite regularly and I am wondering if there is a need for a change. I would think that the only time you should change the regulations is that there is sound scientific evidence that they need changing. What does the recent data show as compared to the old data? Is the walleye population shrinking? Are the sizes of the fish changing? We should not be taking our judgements as even if we don’t notice our techniques, time of year, areas fished etc . change. We should be relying on scientific data to support changes.

To a certain degree i agree.
The fishermans input is valuable to the overall data collected if only for the reason SRD's resources limit their actual testing.
The unofficial(yet) data is not favourable.

[chubbdarter]

Originally Posted by npauls

If the change was made to close the west arm or whatever reg. changes to the west end they could use either the pump house or the boat launch as a boundary marker. Maybe put some kind of marker system across the lake on the shoreline so it is a definitive line. This would make so there is no gray area to cause more confusion.

For Keho I think they should make the regs to include the inlet canal all the way up to the road culvert as the lake.

I believe the canal should have some closure times up to the first drop

[nicemustang]

Closing the west arm for 2-3 extra weeks would be good for the fishery...except it doesn't really need more walleye does it?

[chubbdarter]

It appears I dont understand the process entirely or there is no process